w^Mh 


MAY  26  1959 

BSII99 
.L3P4 


V 


>, 


MAY  9 -1927' 
tot 


0GIGM%1\ 


ENTATEUCH    LA" 


AND  THB 


Higher   Criticism 


A    SERIES   OF   QUESTIONS   IN   REVIEW   OF   RECENT 

THEORIES   CONCERNING   THE   ORIGIN   OF 

THE  PENTATEUCH  LEGISLATION. 


PRINTBD  FOR  THE  USE  OP 
CLASSES  IN   THE 

HARTFORD   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 


HARTFORD,  CONN.: 
Press  op  The  Case,  Lockwood  &  Brainard  Company. 

1885. 


PRELIMINARY  STATEMENT. 


Until  within  a  comparatively  recent  period  Moses  has  been 
generally  regarded  as  the  originator,  under  God,  of  the  great  mass 
of  Pentateuch  laws;  or,  at  least,  as  a  principal  in  bringing  them 
into  the  form  in  which  they  now  appear.  The  consecutive  narra- 
tive of  events  in  which  these  laws  are  imbedded  has  been  looked 
upon  as  genuine  history  and  entirely  wortliy  of  trust.  A  very 
different  theory,  however,  is  now  proposed.  It  is  claimed  that 
the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch,  so  far  from  being  the  product  of  a 
single  generation,  or  originating  to  any  great  extent  with  Moses, 
are  the  result  of  slow  development  extending  through  many  cen- 
turies. The  earliest  code,  it  is  said,  is  that  found  in  the  so-called 
Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.,  xxxiv).  It  arose  during 
the  time  of  the  early  kings  and  prophets  (c.  B.  C.  1000).  Next 
appeared  the  code  of  Deuteronomy  (chaps,  xii.-xxvi.)  at  the  period 
when  it  is  alleged  to  have  been  discovered  (B.  C.  621;  cf. 
2  Kings  xxii).  The  remaining  laws  of  the  Pentateuch,  embracing 
what  has  come  to  be  known  as  the  Priests'  Code,  are  a  precipitate 
from  the  varied  activity  of  learned  men,  especially  priests,  down 
to  the  time  of  Ezra,  when  they  first  assumed  their  present  form 
and  were  publicly  introduced  (B.  C.  444).  This  theory  has  awak- 
ened so  much  attention  and  gained  so  wide  a  currency,  particularly 
in  Europe,  that  it  cannot  be  passed  lightly  over.  The  special 
object  of  the  present  series  of  questions  which  is  based  on  chapters 
iii.-vi.  of  the  writer's  book  (The  Pentateuch:  its  Origin  and 
Structure.      An   Examination    of  Recent    Theories.      New   York: 


Charles  Scribners  Sons,  1885)  is  to  test  the  matter:  (I)  whether 
the  laws  themselves  when  critically  examined,  and  as  compared 
with  one  another  and  with  those  of  the  other  supposed  codes, 
require  the  abandonment  of  the  old  position  that  they  originated 
in  the  age  of  Moses;  and  (2)  whether  they  favor  in  any  degree 
the  proposed  hypothesis  of  development.  In  harmony  with  the 
nomenclature  of  the  criticism  we  shall  use  the  characters  JE  to 
represent  the  two  alleged  earliest  documents  of  the  Bible  which, 
as  combined,  had  for  their  legislative  portion  the  above-named 
Book  of  the  Covenant.  D  will  be  used  for  chapters  xii.-xxvi.  of 
Deuteronomy,  that  is,  its  entire  body  of  laws.  PC  will  be  under- 
stood as  referring  to  the  Priests'  Code  and  as  including  all  the 
remaining  laws  of  the  Pentateuch.  For  further  explanation  of 
terms  and  of  the  analysis  see  p.  85f.  of  the  writer's  book,  to 
which,  moreover,  all  references  not  otherwise  specific  in  form  are 
made.  It  will  be  noticed  that,  with  the  exception  of  laws  peculiar 
to  PC,  the  investigation  is  conducted  on  the  basis  of  D,  since  its  code 
is  the  most  representative  of  the  Pentateuch  legislation  in  general. 
All  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  are  brought  under  review  excepting 
a  few  in  Exodus  concerning  whose  early  date  there  would  probably 
be  no  dispute. 


X 


LAWS  OF  THE  SEVERAL  CODES. 


Text  of  D.  Topic.  Questions. 

xii.  2-4.  Destruction  of  What  appropriateness  in  such  an  in- 

idols  (p.  168).  troduction  to  the  code  of  D  on 

the  common  theory? 
Attitude  of  all  the  codes  towards 

idolatry? 
Any  essential    difference    in    their 
point  of  view? 
xii.  5-28.  Centralization  of        How  is  the  theory  of  development 

worship  (p.  84).  applied  here? 

Does  JE  really  allow  a  plurality  of 

altars  at  one  and  the  same  time? 
Does  PC  presuppose  a  centralized 

worship  as  a  thing  of  the  past? 
What  evidence  in  JE  that  one  cen- 
tral place  of  worship  was  then 
required? 
Is  it  probable  that  if  JE  allowed  a 
contemporaneous  plurality  of  al- 
tars D  would  so  strenuously  pro- 
hibit it? 
xii.  31.  Worship  of  Mo-        What  was  Moloch  and  its  worship? 

loch  (p.  1G9).  Conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  the 

way  in  which  the  subject  is  pre- 
sented in  PC  and  D  respectively? 
What  two  leading  principles  of  the 
proposed  Iheorj'  of  development 
are  here  seen  to  be  inoperative? 
xiii.  1-12.  Seduction  to  idol-        Bearing  of  the  independent  legisla- 

atry  (p.  134).  tion  of  a  code  on  critical  questions 

Peculiar  to  D.  in  general? 


Text  of  D. 


Topic. 


Xiii.    13-19; 
XX.  15-18. 


xiv.  1,  2. 


xiv.  3-20, 


xiv.  31. 


xiv.  22-29. 


Destruction  of 
Canaanitish 
cities  (p.  171). 


Forbidden 
mourning  cus- 
toms (p.  172). 


Food  as  clean 
and  unclean 
(p.  173). 


Animals  eaten  to 
be  properly 
slain  (p.  175). 


The  Offerings 
(p.  94). 


Questions. 

Logical  connection  of  tliis  law  with 
its  context? 

Anj^  evidence  of  Mosaic  origin  in 
its  form? 

Evidence  that  it  represents  the  most 
developed  form  of  Pentateuch 
legislation  on  this  subject? 

Fitness  of  such  a  law  as  originating 
in  the  time  of  King  Josiah  (B.  C. 
621)? 

Logical  connection  of  this  statute? 

Does  its  form  in  D  presuppose  other 
laws  on  the  subject? 

Is  PC  or  JE  referred  to  (see  D  xx. 
17)? 

What  force  in  such  a  law  subse- 
quent to  the  time  of  David? 

Any  marks  of  a  later  age  in  the 
form  of  the  law  of  PC? 

What  renders  improbable  the  rise 
of  the  law  in  D  at  the  time  of 
King  Josiah? 

Reasons  for  supposing  the  legisla- 
tion of  D  here  dependent  on  that 
of  PC? 

Bearing  of  the  supposed  textual  cor- 
ruption? 

Differences  in  the  three  codes  as 
compared  together? 

Is  the  order  JE,  PC,  D,  a  natural 
one  under  the  circumstances  pre- 
supposed in  the  history? 

How  is  the  theory  of  development 
applied  in  the  case  of  the  offerings  ? 

Is  it  a  fair  statement  to  say  that  PC, 
contrary  to  JE,  makes  the  custom 
of  sacrificing  begin  with  Moses? 


Text  of  D. 


Topic 


XV.    1-11. 


XV.   12-18. 


XV.  19-23. 


xvi.  1-17. 


The    Sabbatic 
year  (p.  177). 


Release  of  He- 
brew servants 
(p.  177). 


Animal  sacrifices 
to  be  faultless 
(p.  181). 


The    Feasts    (p. 
104). 


Questione. 

Can  the  alleged  discrepancy  between 
the  two  codes  be  proved  to  exist? 

Does  the  fact  that  PC  alone  intro- 
duces the  sin  and  trespass  offer- 
ing as  such  prove  its  later  origin? 

Validity  of  other  evidence  adduced 
as  showing  the  late  rise  of  PC? 

Reasons  for  supposing  that  the  same 
thing  is  referred  to  in  all  the  codes? 

How  is  the  difference  of  form  to  be 
accounted  for? 

Bearing  of  D's  law  of  the  tithe? 

Logical  connection  of  this  law  with 
its  context? 

Points  of  divergence  in  the  three 
forms  of  the  law,  how  to  be 
accounted  for? 

Provision  of  PC  respecting  the  year 
of  jubilee? 

What  difference  between  D  and  PC 
here? 

Reason  for  supposing  the  form  in 
D  secondary? 

Might  greater  definiteness  naturally 
be  expected  in  PC? 

How  is  the  hypothesis  of  develop- 
ment applied  here? 

Textual  basis  for  the  theory  that 
these  feasts  were  originally  popu- 
lar festivals? 

Does  the  passover  appear  as  a  differ- 
ent thing  (in  name,  date,  occasion) 
in  D  from  what  we  find  it  in  PC? 

Does  D  differ  from  PC  in  the  num- 
ber of  days  required  for  the  feast 
of  tabernacles? 


Text  of  D. 


Topic. 


xvi.   18-20; 
xvii.  8-13. 


xvi.   19,  20; 
xxiv.  14,  15. 

xvii.  2-5. 


xvii.  6,  7. 


xvii.  14-20. 


xviii.  1-8. 


Judges  and   offi- 
cers (p.  136). 
Peculiar  to  D. 

Oppression  of  the 

poor  (p.  182). 

Punishment  of 
Hebrew  idola- 
tors  (p.  138). 
Peculiar  to  D. 

Of  witnesses  (p. 
183). 


The  king  (p.  141). 
Peculiar  to  D. 


Priests    and    Le- 
vites  (p.  112). 


Questions 
Why  do  JE  and  D  probably  fail  to 

mention  the  feast  of  trumpets? 
Does  the  fact  that  PC  alone  enjoins 

the  day  of  atonement  favor  the 

hypothesis  of  its  late  origin? 
What  seems  to  be  contemplated  in 

this  law? 
Objections  to  considering  it  as  late 

as  the  times  of  Jehosaphat? 
Mutual  relation  of  the  three  codes? 
Evidence  that  PC  is  not  later  than 

D? 
Importance  of   this  law  from   the 

point  of  view  of  the  criticism? 
Evidence  that  the  form  of  idolatry 

here  forbidden  was  very  old? 
Bearing  of  the  form  of  the  statute? 
Relation  of  D  to  PC  here? 
Reasons  for  supposing  D  the  later? 
Validity  of  such   an   argument  in 

view  of  previous   reasoning  (see 

foot-note)? 
The  idealism  of  the   Hebrew  laws 

here  a  defect? 
What  does  the  external  form  of  the 

law  presuppose? 
Was  Solomon  probably  in  mind? 
Features  precluding  the  theory  of  a 

late  date? 
What  is  to  be  said  of  the  silence  of 

Samuel  respecting  this  law? 
How  is  the  theory  of  development 

applied  here? 
Does  JE  say  nothing  of  priests? 
Does  D  make  no  distinction  between 

priests  and  Levites? 


Text  of  D 


Topic. 


xviii.  9-14. 


xviii.    15-22. 


xix.  1-13. 


Magical   arts   (p. 
184). 


The  prophet  (p. 
144).  Peculiar 
to  D. 


Cities  of  Refuge 
(p.  185). 


xix.   14. 


Of  landmarks  (p. 
146).  Peculiar 
to  D. 


QiiePtionp. 

Do  the  historical  portions  of  D 
differ  from  the  representations 
of  PC  respecting  the  duties  of 
priests? 

How  may  the  weakening  of  the  dis- 
tinction between  priests  and  Le- 
vites  in  D  be  partial Ij'  accounted 
for? 

Bearing  of  the  law  in  PC  concern- 
ing the  high-priest  on  the  ques- 
tion of  development? 

Fact  showing  that  this  office  did 
not  originate  during  the  exile? 

Other  facts  bearing  against  the 
development  hypothesis? 

External  form  of  the  law  in  the 
three  codes? 

Bearing  of  Israelitish  history  on  the 
question  of  its  slow  development? 

Importance  of  the  law  of  the 
prophet? 

How  is  it  introduced? 

Consequences  of  supposing  it  not 
genuine? 

Apparent  aim  of  the  Pentateuch 
law  in  all  its  phases? 

Relation  of  the  codes,  especially 
that  of  D  to  PC? 

Bearing  of  the  provision  in  I)  for 
three  additional  cities? 

Were  these  three  expected  to  make 
the  whole  number  nine  or  six? 

Exact  force  of  the  prohibition? 

Any  evidence  that  it  would  be  no 
anachronism  on  the  lips  of  Moses? 


10 


Text  of  D. 
xix.   15-21. 


XX.  1-9. 


XX.  10-14; 
19,  20. 


xxi.  1-9. 


xxi.  10-14; 
18-21. 


xxi.  15-17. 


xxi,  22,  23. 


Topic.  Qnestione. 

Of  false  witnesses        Mutu.al  relation  of  the  three  codes? 
(p.  188).  Weight  of  probability  as  it  respects 

the  priority  of  D  or  PC? 
Preparation  for  Appropriateness  of  such  a  law  in 

battle  (p.  147).  D  on  the  common  theory? 

Peculiar  to  D.         Inconsistency  of    its  specifications 
with  a  date  as  late  as  the  times  of 
Hezekiah  even? 
Incidental    proofs   of   the    priority 

of  PC? 
Organization  of  the  Israelitish  army 

in  the  royal  period? 
Peculiarity  of  introduction? 
Such  a  statute  appropriate  to  the 
times  after   the   division   of  the 
kingdom? 
Would  it   be  out  of   place  at  the 

period  of  the  exodus? 
Primitive  character  of  the  legisla- 
tion suggests  what? 
Is  a  sacrificial  rite  enjoined? 
Ceremony  is  based  on  what  custom? 
State  of  things  presupposed  in  the 

former  class? 
Would  the  latter  be  out  of  place  in 

a  Mosaic  code? 
What  was  the  original  custom? 
Apparent  aim  of  the  legislation  in 

all  its  phases? 
What  fixes  the  date  of  that  of  PC? 
Form    of    the    law   suggests  what 
respecting  the   origin  of  Penta- 
teuch laws  in  general? 
Of  hanging  Confirmation  in  the  Book  of  Joshua 

(p.  151).  of  the  early  origin  of  this  law? 

Peculiar  to  D.  Why   allowable   to   cite  this  book 

here? 


Of  hostile  cities 
(p.  148).  Pecu- 
liar to  D. 


Purification  for 
murder  (p.  149). 
Peculiar  to  D. 

Female  captives. 

A  disobedient 
son  (p.  150). 
Peculiar  to  D. 

Rights  of  inherit- 
ance (p.  189). 


11 


Text  of  D. 
xxii.  1-4. 


xxii.  6,  7. 


xxii.  8. 


xxii.  5,  9-11. 


xxii.  12. 


xxii.  13-21. 


xxii.  22-29; 
xxiii.  1. 


xxiii.  2-9. 


Topic, 

Property  of  Is- 
raelites 
(p.  190). 

Kindness  to  ani- 
mals (p.  191). 

Regard  for  hu- 
man life 
(p.  151). 
Peculiar  to  D. 

Mixing  of  things 
diverse  (p.  191). 


Of  fringes 
(p.  192). 

Charge  of  un- 
chastity 
(p.  151). 
Peculiar  to  D. 

Sins  against  chas- 
tity (p.  183). 


Congregation  of 
the  Lord 
(p.  152). 
Peculiar  to  D. 


Questions. 
Bears  only  on  the  relation  of  D  to 
JE. 

Appropriateness  of  the  form  of  the 
law  in  PC  and  D  respectively  to 
their  commonly  supposed  origin? 

What  might  the  law  presuppose? 

How  appropriate  to  its  historic  set- 
ting as  found? 

Reasons  for  supposing  the  form  of 
the  law  found  in  D  but  an  en- 
largement of  that  of  PC? 

Evidence  that  the  one  law  had  the 
other  in  view? 

Marks  of  the  popular  form  of  D  as 
compared  with  PC? 

Difference  in  the  form  of  the  legis- 
lation in  D  and  PC  and  its  natural 
ground? 

Apparent  object  of  the  law? 

Relation  to  the  peculiar  one  in 
Numb.  v.  11-31? 

How  is  the  subject  treated  in  the 
several  codes? 

Why  should  priority  to  D  be  as- 
cribed to  the  form  in  PC? 

Evidence  in  D  that  it  had  PC  be- 
fore it? 

Adaptation  of  the  law  to  the  his- 
toric circumstances  of  D? 

Why  inappropriate  to  a  later  period 
than  the  exodus? 

Natural  inference  from  the  attitude 
of  the  law  toward  the  Ammonite 
and  Moabiteand  other  nations? 


12 


Text  of  D. 
xxiii.  10-15. 


xxiii.  16,  17. 


xxiii.  18,  19. 


xxiv.  1-4. 


Topic. 
Cleanliness  in  the 
camp  (p.  194). 


Fugitive  slaves 
(p.  155). 
Peculiar  to  D. 

Prostitution 
(13.  194). 


xxiii.  20,  21.         Usury  (p.  195). 


xxiii.  22-24.         Vows  (p.  196). 


xxiv.  6,  10- 
13,  17,  18. 


xxiv.  7. 
xxiv.  8,  9. 


Divorce  (p.  156). 
Peculiar  to  D. 


Pledges  (p.  197). 


Of  Man-stealing 

(p.  198). 
Leprosy  (p.  198). 


Questions. 
How  is  this  law  in  harmony  with 

its  historic  background? 
Its  relation  in  its  general  spirit  to 

PCV 
Any  special  marks  of  origin  in  the 

Mosaic  period? 
Any  evidence  that  it  would  not  be 

out  of  place  then? 
Any  reason  to  suppose  that  D  ante- 
dates PC  here? 
Peculiarity  of  the  form  of  the  stat- 
ute in  D? 
Relation  of  the  different  forms  of 

the  law  to  the  common  theory  of 

their  origin? 
Peculiar  coloring  of  D? 
Spirit  of  all  the  laws  touching  this 

subject? 
Local  coloring  of  D  ? 
Relation  of  the  latter  to  PC? 
Is  this  law  too  much  developed  for 

the  exodus  period? 
What  fact  found  in  PC  is  here  as 

sumed? 
Does  it  rise  to  the  plane  of   the 

teaching  of  the  later  prophets? 
Any  signs  of  a  late  period  ? 
Failure  of  PC  to  treat  the  subject 

suggestive? 
Relation  of  the  law  in  D  to  that  of 

JE? 
Relation  of  the  codes  of  JE  and  D? 

What  principle  laid  down  by  De- 
litzsch  may  be  here  applied? 


13 


Tuxt  of  D. 


xxiv.  19-22. 


XXV.  1-3. 


XXV.  5-10. 


XXV.  11-12. 


XXV.  13-16. 


XXV.  17-19. 


xxvi.    1-19. 


Lev.  xxiv. 

15,  16; 
Numb.   XV. 

30,  31. 


Topic. 


Gleaning  (p.  199). 


Punisliment  by 
flogging 
(p.  157). 
Peculiar  to  D. 

Leviiate  mar- 
riage (p.  157). 
Peculiar  to  D. 


Punishment  of 

immodesty 

(p.  158). 

Peculiar  to  D. 
Just  weights  and 

measures 

(p.  200). 

Amalek  (p.  158). 
Peculiar  to  D. 


An   offering    of 
lirst   fruits  (p. 
160).     Peculiar 
^     to  D. 

LAWS   PECULTAU   TO 

Blasphemy 
(p.  209). 


Quegtiens. 

Any  critical  value  in  the  reference 
to  Miriam? 

How  does  the  code  of  D  stand  re- 
lated to  PC  here? 

Any  suggestion  of  the  priority  of  D? 

Significance  of  the  method  of  ad- 
ministering this  punismentV 


On  what  custom  was  this  law  based? 

Its  relation  to  Lev.  xviii.  16? 

What  seeming  historic  corrobora- 
tion has  it? 

Any  good  reason  from  the  form  of 
the  law  itself  for  denying  its 
Mosaic  origin? 

Difference  in  the  Deuteronomic  and 
the  Levitical  forms? 

Inference  from  the  motives  urged 
respectively? 

Probable  original  form  of  the  pass- 
age? 

Nature  of  the  appeal  suggests  what? 

What  were  the  present  circum- 
stances of  Israel? 

Bearing  of  the  actual  history  of 
Amalek? 

This  formula  was  for  what  occa- 
sion? 

Any  marks  of  a  post-Mosaic  origin? 

THE   priests'   code. 

In  itself  considered ,  is  this  law  out 
of  place  in  the  age  of  Moses? 

What  special  confirmation  of  its 
genuineness? 


14 


Text  erf-©. 

Topic. 

Ex.  xxviii. 

The  sacred  vest- 

1-43. 

ments  (p.  210). 

Ex.  xxix. 

Consecration  of 

1-43,  etc. 

the  priests 

(p.  213). 

Ex.  XXX. 

The  anointing  oil 

22-33. 

(p.  215). 

Lev.  X.  8-11; 

Special    require- 

xxi. 1-24. 

ments    from 

priests  (p.  215). 

Numb.    XXV. 

High-priest  to  be 

10-13. 

from  Eleazer's 

line  (p.  216). 

Lev.  xxii. 

Requirements 

1-16;  Numb. 

from  those  eat- 

xviii. 10  ff. 

ing  of  the  sacri- 

fices (p.  218). 

Numb.  vi. 

Prerogatives   of 

22-27;  X. 

the  priests 

1-10. 

(p.  219). 

(iuestions. 
Objections  to  considering  it  a  late 

product? 
Any  particular  marks  of  the  earliest 

period  ? 
What  argument  derived  from   the 

names  of  certain  colors? 
What  inference  to  be  drawn  from 

the    history    of    the    Urim    and 

Thummim? 
What  was  the  ceremony? 
Evidence  of   age  from  the  rite  of 

anointing? 
Are  the  form  of  offerings  peculiar 

to  any  age  ? 
Were  its  compounds  ever  rare? 
Argument  from  the  later  abandon- 
ment of  the  rite? 
What  of  the  requirement  respecting 

marriage? 

Teaching  of  the  history? 

Bearing  of  the  title  "  son  of  Aaron  " 
in  PC? 

Uniform  position  of  the  high-priest 
throughout  the  biblical  book? 

Are  the  alleged  stages  of  develop- 
ment discoverable? 

Opinion  of  Delitzsch? 

Bearing  of  these  regulations  on  the 
theory  of  a  Priests'  Code? 

Relative  position  of  Moses  and 
Aaron  throughout  this  code? 

The  two  points  of  special  import- 
ance here? 

Any  evidence  of  development? 

Original  use  of  the  silver  trumpet 
and  its  later  history? 


15 


TextjO*HD. 

Ex.  XXV.- 

xxvii.  19.  Cf. 

xxxvi- 

xxxviii. 


Ex.  XXX. 

1-21,  34-38. 


Ex.  XXV. 

23-30;  Lev. 

xxiv.  5-9. 

Ex.  xxvii.   1 
If. ;  xxviii.  If. 


Lev.   i.  1-17; 
vi.  1-6,  etc. 


Topic. 

Tlie  tabernacle 
and   its  furni- 
ture (p.  220). 


Altar  of  incense 
(p.  226). 


Table  of    shew- 
bread  (p.  227). 


Altar    of    burnt 
offering 
(p.  228). 


The  burnt  offer- 
ing (p.  229). 


Cinestions. 

Objections  to  considering  the  ac- 
count of  the  tabernacle  fictitious? 

Its  historic  reality,  how  supported? 

Any  real  difficulty  in  the  details  of 
the  narrative? 

Does  the  Pentateuch  recognize  one 
or  two  tabernacles? 

Riehm's  theory  for  explaining  appar- 
ent discrepancies? 

How  may  all  statements  be  harmo- 
nized on  the  basis  of  the  unity 
and  genuineness  of  the  docu- 
ments? 

Proof  that  of  the  furniture  of  the 
tabernacle  the  ark  dates  back  to 
the  age  of  Moses? 

Peculiarity  of  the  account  of  the 
altar  of  incense  ? 

Objection  to  regarding  it  as  an  after- 
thought based  on  that  of  Solo- 
mon's temple? 

Reasons  for  supposing  that  the  table 
of  sJicw-bread  and  the  candlestick 
as  described  in  PC  are  genuine 
and  Mosaic? 

Changes  the  altar  of  burnt  offering 
underwent  in  the  history? 

Conclusions  to  be  drawn  here  and 
in  the  case  of  the  remaining  fur- 
niture of  the  tabernacle  from 
these  changes,  when  the  usage 
of  the  exile  period  is  considered? 

Important  presuppositions? 

Relation  of  Jehovist  and  Elohist? 

Ritual  out  of  place  in  the  exodus 
period  ? 


16 


Text  9f-e: 

Lev.  ii.  1-6, 

7.  11;  X.  12, 

13,  etc. 


Lev.  iii. 
1-17;  vii. 
11-21,  etc. 

Lev.    iv. ; 
v.  13,  etc. 


Lev.   v. 
14-26;  vii. 
1-10,  etc. 


Lev.    xxvii. 
1-34. 


Numb.  vi. 
1-21. 

Lev.   xii. 
1-18. 


Topic. 
Meal  and  drink 
offering 
(p.  230). 


Peace  offering 
(p.  231). 


Sin  offering 
(p.  232). 


Trespass  offering 
(p.  233). 


Release   from 
vows  (p.  234). 


The  Nazarite 
(p.  236). 

Rite  of  purifica- 
tion at  cbild- 
birtli  (p.  237). 


QuestionB. 
Peculiarity  of  tlie  Petateucli  rituai 

of  the  drink  offering? 
What  evidence  of  development  in 

Hebrew  usage? 
To  what  does  the    institution    of 

these  offerings  look  forward? 
When  did  this  rite  originate? 
Argument  derived  from  the  terms 

employed  that  it  is  not  of  late 

date? 
Significance  of    the  order   of    the 

narrative? 
What  points  to   its  origin  in   the 

wilderness? 
Bearing  of  Israelitish  historj^  after 

the  times  of  Hosea? 
Distinction  between    this    offering 

and  the  last? 
Is  the  latter  a  subordinate  dcAjelop- 

ment  from  the  former? 
Terminology     of    the     Pentateuch 

always  consistent? 
Whj'  is  this  offering  so  seldom  re- 
ferred to? 
Relation  of  this  law  to  the  Sinaitic 

legislation  in  general? 
Reason  for  such  a  law  at  an  early 

period? 
What  were  the  exilian  and  post- 
exilian  usages? 
Evident  aim  of  this  law? 
Ground    for     inferring    an ,  early 

origin? 
Ethical  basis  of  the  rite? 
Any  internal  marks  of  its  age? 


17 


Text  o*^. 

Xiimb.    xix. 
1-22. 


Lev.  xxiii. 
23-25,  etc. 


Ex.  XXX.  10. 
Lev.   xvi. 
1-34,  etc. 


Topic. 
Puiitication   by 
the  ashes  of  a 
red    heifer 
(p.  238). 

Opening  feast  of 
the    seventh 
month  (p.  239). 


The  day  of  atone- 
ment (p.  242). 


Questions. 

These  Elohisfic  rites  of  piiriticalion 
are  based  on  what  Jehovistic 
principles? 

Circumstances  favoring  the  rise  of 
this  law  in  the  exodus  period? 

Importance  of  this  law  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  criticism? 

Is  it  noticed  in  the  historical  books? 

Why  not  admit  that  it  arose  at  the 
time  of  the  exile? 

How  do  the  exulauts  really  cele- 
brate this  feast? 

How  is  this  law  introduced  in  the 
code? 

Natural  inference  from  such  a  four- 
fold presentation? 

Anj'thiug  in  the  history  to  disprove 
its  potential  existence  in  the 
statute? 

Occasion  of  its  first  announcement? 

Has  this  law  the  exclusive  support 
of  PC? 


J 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 


Syracuse.   N     Y. 
Stockton,   Colif. 


DATE  DUE 

■  „,^.,,..^. 

1MHtoii> 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.*. 

